Posted
by
Soulskill
on Thursday December 02, 2010 @04:56AM
from the have-a-burger-to-celebrate dept.

Faulkner39 writes "In response to the recently released independently developed platformer Super Meat Boy, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has released a Flash-based spoof game titled Super Tofu Boy. The spoof attempts to mirror the original by featuring a protagonist made of tofu and an antagonist made of meat in a statement promoting animal rights. Ironically, however, the original game is about a human boy who is vulnerable because he lacks skin (Meat Boy), raising the question: 'is the spoof in reality really about cannibalism?'"
The Super Meat Boy team posted a response on their Twitter feed.

That's wht the PETA spoof is so important for them. On their site [supermeatboy.com] they explain how they've been trolling the PETA forums, hoping for this to happen. Apparently with success. It's a weird kind of PR, but it works, because now you've heard of Super Meat Boy. Thanks to trolling, PETA and Slashdot.

Most platformers and most FPS game suck. But there's enough of a volume that you end up with plenty of good ones to play. Sort of like how most puzzle games suck, and well most games in general suck, but there's a large enough volume that you can always find at least a few games in the genre worth playing.

I think they have it backwards then. They could start by showing proper stewardship of their own animals. PETA putting down 90% of the animals they take in is rank hypocrisy especially when that's triple the rate of a non-PETA shelter. "Do as I say and not as I do" is just not the way to run an advocacy program. If they trail the industry in pet treatment, why should anyone listen to them on the treatment of any other kind of animal?

Then why don't they offer the subjects of their animal jails to the livestock industry thusly (pardon the irony here) killing two birds with one stone? They would reduce the number of animals they kill while simultaneously reducing the number of livestock *the opponent* kills?
Also, since when is it more humane to incarcerate a living being for years before inevitably killing them than it is to simply kill them without the long drawn out torture?

The problem is that PETA don't think *any* animals should be domesticated, so mostly they don't even bother to try to rehome animals.

Quite often they don't bother to find out if they're abandoned or unwanted - a couple of years ago two PETA activists were arrested for basically trapping cats and dogs (and indeed, going into people's gardens to catch them) and killing them. They claimed that the animals were "abandoned" or "strays", but couldn't offer any convincing reason for thinking they were. They weren't interested in animal welfare, they just liked stealing then torturing and killing people's pets.

The problem is that PETA don't think *any* animals should be domesticated, so mostly they don't even bother to try to rehome animals.

That's one thing I've never understood. What exactly is wrong with an animal having a caring owner, someone to trust to, a warm home, no need to be afraid of predators, and not having to get cold and sometimes go days without food? I myself have two cats and I would say they are MUCH better off here with me than out there in the Finnish winter. Hell, you don't need to be an expert or anything to see that they actually like their life here. Even if I open the door and let them out they come back after 3 minutes, they just simply don't want to go there.

Don't you see man! It's like slavery! thinking you can "own" an animal.We can't "own" our animal equals!keeping a pet is so like exactly the same as slavery!

That's what they seem to claim, indeed. However, in slavery the slaver puts the slaves to work for him or her to produce something of value, but pets do not need to work, they do not produce anything, they just exist. Even when some people take their dogs out to hunting or something the pet actually most often enjoys it, it's not forced to it, it's good

The reason PETA are disconnected from reality is that they are projecting their own self-loathing onto the arena of animal rights issues, rather than addressing animal rights with logic and rationality. The driving thought in a militant PETA member's head is that humans are disgusting worthless bullies and animals are perfect and angelic. Because humans are in a position of power over animals, they are evil, and revenge must be sought at every opportunity. They're projecting their own self loathing, and their own feelings of powerlessness onto an unrelated issue. When the time comes for them face a logic rebuttal to their behaviour, cognitive dissonance kicks to protect them from facing the fact that they have become the very bullies they despise.

That's one thing I've never understood. What exactly is wrong with an animal having a caring owner, someone to trust to, a warm home, no need to be afraid of predators, and not having to get cold and sometimes go days without food?

Nothing at all. And I'm vegan.

In fact, this is probably a good time to point out that not all vegans think the PETA people have their heads on straight. Just because I don't want to contribute to the cruelty that happens in factory farms doesn't mean I think animals should have the right to vote or whatever.

I would not mind agreeing with you if it weren't for the fact that this is directly against PETA's stated goals. They want to eliminate ownership of animals, and eliminate the euthanasia of animals. Never mind that their central office euthanizes thousands of animals a year.

It's not so much that I am against their ideals. I just can't stand f**ing hypocrites.

It's not so much that I am against their ideals. I just can't stand f**ing hypocrites.

Bah. Hypocrisy is everywhere. What bugs me is that they somehow think that they know what is ethical in the first place. Who are they to decide that it is wrong for an animal to suffer? Seeing a suffering animal invokes feelings of sadness, horror, and disgust in most people (or in me at least) and they want to see it stop, but that's just how our brains are programed and it doesn't make it wrong. There have been studies that show that people who enjoy inflicting cruelty on an animal are more likely to grow

*who the hell are you to decide if my life isn't worth living*Or in the case of animals you can't communicate with- killing them can be more about what you want and what you feel than about what the animals wants or feel.It makes you feel better to no longer see it suffering, the animal on the other hand may be quite determined to keep living.

It makes you feel better to no longer see it suffering, the animal on the other hand may be quite determined to keep living.

They have to restrain a healthy animal to put it down for a reason. I think few of us have seen an animal that realizes it's time to die and doesn't resist any more because of our "civilized" (read: city-dwelling) experience. The animals get whisked away to the hospital to be put down.

A man should shoot his own dog. And while we're talking about eating meat, I think that anyone who wants to eat meat should have to participate in the slaughtering, dressing, cooking, and eating of an animal in sequence, or ta

And while we're talking about eating meat, I think that anyone who wants to eat meat should have to participate in the slaughtering, dressing, cooking, and eating of an animal in sequence, or take a full tour of a feedlot and slaughterhouse, in order to get a license to be permitted to eat meat.

I think that we should just use our supposedly intelligent minds (at this point, I'm doubting that though) to perfect in vitro meat [wikipedia.org] so that no animals will have to suffer that way any longer to get meat.

I think that we should just use our supposedly intelligent minds (at this point, I'm doubting that though) to perfect in vitro meat so that no animals will have to suffer that way any longer to get meat.

Who says they have to suffer? Feedlots are unnecessary, they're simply cost-effective.

It would be nice if you could explain what you're talking about so that I wouldn't have to continually ask what it is you're talking about (but apparently that's being defensive). So, I'll just ask: how is my opinion inconsistent?

I think that we should just use our supposedly intelligent minds (at this point, I'm doubting that though) to perfect in vitro meat [wikipedia.org] so that no animals will have to suffer that way any longer to get meat.

Please give me a reason for this. Why should I care? (BTW, I have reasons from my own belief system as to why I should care about animal suffering, however, most slashdotters who express your type of opinion reject my belief system and fail to replace it with one that gives any logically consistent reason as to why I should care about the suffering of others).

most slashdotters who express your type of opinion reject my belief system and fail to replace it with one that gives any logically consistent reason as to why I should care about the suffering of others

My type of opinion? I could care less what you believe. Care or don't, but I'm going to continue believing what I believe. There are no absolute morals.

So you think most people wouldn't do it, based on the last 50 years or so of eating processed meat, when we (as a species) have done it for millions of years? Do you believe we changed that much is such short time?I don't, especially since there's still a large portion of the world which does still grow animals for food in their houses.

I'm not a particularly brave person and I'm a "fool for the city" in the words of Foghat, but helping my grandmother kill and prepate one of her chickens wasn't particularly

Seriously though, I think we'd have a lot less meat eaters with such a system implemented, and that WOULD reduce environmental damage under other current systems.

Homo Sapiens existed for a couple hundred thousand years before animal domestication, in which time our ancestors at a LOT of meat that they had to kill and butcher themselves. While some present-day humans might have some initial squeamishness about killing what they eat, I think they'd get over it quickly. Our ancestors had to do it, why couldn't

I'm quite sure that I'm not. I've killed and eaten stuff, the last thing was a deer my lady ran into the fence and it killed its neck, I went out and slit its throat and it ended up in our oven and freezer. The first thing was a goose at Roaring Camp and Big Trees railroad, we lured it with popcorn and stuffed it in a burlap sack, took it off into the hills (away from the others) and chopped its head off with a hatchet. That doesn't mean that I think everyone wants to do the same. But there's really no way

Example: Westboro Baptist Church has every right in the world to believe their wacky shit. I have every right in the world to believe the world would be a better place if they were to all be raped, tortured, and then fed into a wood chipper. Neither of us has to give a happy damn about seeing things from the other's point of view.

Bah. Hypocrisy is everywhere.... Who are they to decide that it is wrong for an animal to suffer?... Unless there is some sort of god above, I don't think there is any innate law of the universe that determines what is wrong and what is right, it's up to us to decide.

Just because there isn't an absolute moral code, doesn't mean we can't act to defend ours.

By your POV, abolitionist should not have fought against slavery at a time when it was socially accepted, nor should I help you if you're getting robbed. After all, who's to say if the thieves are wrong?

I am a moral relativist, in the way that I don't believe there is an absolute moral code. But that doesn't mean I believe we shouldn't fight for what we think is right.

I am a moral relativist, in the way that I don't believe there is an absolute moral code. But that doesn't mean I believe we shouldn't fight for what we think is right.

That's where you run into problems. Some people do think murder is right, some people do think rape is alright, some people do think slavery is right; according to your previous statement, you believe that they should fight for that, even if you personally find it repugnant.

Well, yes. Which doesn't mean we should let them murder/rape/enslave. That's why we as a society have defined laws and enforce them. Which are not absolute, and do change with time. If they can convince most people that murder/rape/slavery is alright, then society's moral code will change to accept that, and anti-murder/rape/slavery people (in which I include myself) will become the "freedom fighters".

Basically, you believe that, even though there is nothing inherently superior in your moral code, you should fight and kill people to prevent them from fighting and killing people in ways that violate your moral code. I find such a moral code repugnant. You don't want to fight and kill people because your moral code is superior, but just because they don't follow your code. If there is no absolute moral code, there is no such thing as "right" or "wrong", there is just what I prefer. Arguing about whether i

Basically, you believe that, even though there is nothing inherently superior in your moral code, you should fight and kill people to prevent them from fighting and killing people in ways that violate your moral code.

Where did I say I want to kill people? I'm absolutely against killing people or any kind of death penalty. I'm also completely against preventive punishment.

I find such a moral code repugnant. You don't want to fight and kill people because your moral code is superior, but just because they don't follow your code.

I don't want to kill people, period.

When I say "fight", I'm not talking about violent means necessarily. It may simply mean expressing my personal opinion, or voting against a law, or whatever.

The dictionary definition of "fight" includes:* fight against or resist strongly; "The senator said he would oppose the bill"; "Don't fight it!"* competitiveness

Unless there is some sort of god above, I don't think there is any innate law of the universe that determines what is wrong and what is right

Actually, even if there was a god, his views on what is 'right' or 'wrong' would only be his opinion, not fact.

I don't believe there is a god, but I think most religions operate on the basis of "His universe, His rules", and so if god existed according to that definition then his views on what is 'right' or 'wrong' are indeed fact. It would also mean that I'm going to hell, basically for the simple failing of not believing in him.

His views would still only be an opinion, and not only that, but he sounds like a tyrant. Most religions seem to describe their god as some sort of evil tyrant who will make you suffer for all of eternity if you don't believe what he wants you to. Not a god worth worshiping, in my opinion.

Actually, even if there was a god, his views on what is 'right' or 'wrong' would only be his opinion, not fact.

So, when your car manufacturer tells you that for best performance you should change the oil in your car on a regular basis, that is just their opinion, not fact? If you think your car will run just as well with no oil, there is no reason why you should put oil in it?

When the car manufacturer says "you should change the oil in your car on a regular basis", it is an opinion.When they say "your car's performance/condition will suffer if you don't change its oil on a regular basis", it's a fact.Of course, when they say the former, they actually mean they latter, because it's assumed that if you bought a car, you want it to last and perform.

If the hypothetical god said "you should do X", it would be his/her/whatever opinion. If he/she/whatever said "if you don't do X, you'l

If a domesticated animal has been abandoned and unwanted, the most humane thing to do is end its suffering as quickly and painlessly as possible. Keeping it caged in hopes that someone will come and adopt it may feel nice, but it isn't in the animal's best interest.

It's still an interesting question who gets to determine when death is in your best interest.

If a domesticated animal has been abandoned and unwanted, the most humane thing to do is end its suffering as quickly and painlessly as possible. Keeping it caged in hopes that someone will come and adopt it may feel nice, but it isn't in the animal's best interest.

It's still an interesting question who gets to determine when death is in your best interest.

Yeah, philosophically interesting question sure, but practically easy to answer: the one with the biggest gun gets to decide. Wether it's biggest antlers on a moose, or most comprehensive ICBM 2nd strike capability, it's the same story all over "animal kingdom".

On the other hand, plenty of other organizations do have much, much higher adoption rates. To their credit.

I wonder if it's not just that PETA is quick with the needle, but that they'd still suffer from low adoption rates in their shelters, primarily because most people don't want to deal with PETA if they don't have to.

If the goal is actually REDUCTION OF ANIMAL SUFFERING, it isn't "cruel" (anyone unsure of the meaning, get a fucking dictionary) to the animals to painlessly kill them.

Logic failure.. So what if we rounded up all the homeless people; it wouldn't be cruel to painlessly kill them too? I'm sure lots of homeless people wouldn't mind you killing them because you believe they are suffering just as I'm sure the cats and dogs that are homeless wouldn't mind too.

Before you start a debate about animal != human that's exactly what PETA is campaigning for. Rights for animals, so they're pretty much hypocrites.

I can see from your post however that you believe people or animals should be killed regardless of if they want to. I wonder how you will feel later on when you yourself are getting old and your own death squad is coming for you.

They'll attempt to demonize any mention of carnivorous behavior, often without a complete grasp of what they are attacking-- as seen here. A boy with no skin must be countered with a lump of tofu? Obviously no one there actually played Super Meat Boy.

PETA can't rightfully preach about animal rights while euthanizing tens of thousands of unwanted pets every year. Hypocrisy at its finest.

As a Vegan, I'm always interested when these issues come up on my usual websites. I, like many of the other Animal Rights people here visit Slashdot, Ars, Engadget, Gizmodo etc daily, we dont cause any fuss, but when these "stories" arise, "ohhhhh, they're hypocrites", or "I'm gonna have me a big steak, yummy mc yum yums!!!111!!!" are the usual posts.

"PETA can't rightfully preach about animal rights while euthanizing tens of thousands of unwanted pets every year. Hypocrisy at its finest.".

They can "preach" Animal Rights while also practising euthanasia you realise? Just as I love being alive, but were I to have Cancer such as others in my family, I could well imagine rather being dead, than to die slowly over the months. Now, I much prefer the idea of No Kill shelters, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-kill_shelter [wikipedia.org] , I dont know how practical they are in real life. I've had family members who've volunteered with the SPCA etc, I myself have no hands on experience of this kind.

I agree with practically NOTHING coming from PETA, I think it must obviously be wrong that they "put to sleep" so many animals each year.

However, please dont write off Animal Rights because of PETA's actions.

As a Vegan, I'm always interested when these issues come up on my usual websites.

Hey, maybe you can give your personal opinion, if you've thought about it. What do you think should happen to animals that currently earn their living by being eaten by humans, like pigs? Should humans stop breeding them and let them go extinct? Should they be preserved in some kind of "domesticated animal zoos" in small numbers, so they could earn their upkeep by playing with kids or whatever? What should happen to them?

No-kill shelters are good and all, but they generally only accept animals with a high probability of being adopted. A no-kill shelter isn't going to take the three-legged, one-eye pit bull with a history of attacking people. That dog is probably gonna end up in a high-kill shelter.

I don't know much about PETA's shelters other than they have a reputation for killing

I need to preface this by saying that I have absolutely nothing against vegans, especially when their viewpoint is presented logically and clearly and calmly, as you have.

I have issues, however, when some vegans decide to claim the moral high ground over me, because I continue to eat meat. Let alone when they try to evangelise me. And I realize, baby with the bathwater. It's not fair to lump all vegans together in the same boat in the same way that it's not fair to lump all the Christians in the same boat:

Not at all. Animal rights groups are strongly against the ownership of animals. Euthanizing instead of running an effective adoption program is actually seen as the lesser evil. They obviously don't connect those dots in their public fund raising materials...

> I think the point is that if you skip the> "right to life", no other rights really matter*.

Nature doesn't recognize any "right to life". For the vast majority of creatures, it's more like "a right to live a short, nasty life constantly running and hiding in fear, only to die starving and/or screaming".

Animal rights see the "right to not be property" as implying a kind of "right to life". That is, if you stop treating them as property, then you can't just go around killing them on a whim. I guess tha

I'm not quite sure how euthanizing animals is any more consistent with PETA's proclaimed ideals than owning an animal. What gives PETA the right to decide that an animal should die? If they were consistent, they would just release the animals. By euthanizing the animals, they are acting as if they own them.

Peta should stick to their valid core business of fighting ill treatment of animals.

Vegetarians are a whole different and sad subspecies of humankind, they try to deny we've been eating meat from animals since many millions of years.

As a matter of fact we've become the creatures we are because we ate animals, for example there is strong evidence of a correlation in humanoids starting to eat seafood and a jump in intelligence that led to the making and use of tools.

Well, it is a more concentrated form of protein, which leaves you more time from gathering roots and berries, to like, build stuff, like pyramids, dams, hospitals , a civilization and the like.

Well, not quite. The basis of all civilizations has been the ability to grain of some kind, which allows a few people to create a lot of food, to feed enough people to allow a division of labor and the creation of a class structure. It actually takes each member of a civilization much more labor to be able to feed the

While I'm not a vegetarian, I find your argument invalid. There are plenty of examples of things we've done since many millions of years which are not socially acceptable anymore, at least in our society.

Appeal to tradition, also known as proof from tradition, appeal to common practice, argumentum ad antiquitatem, false induction, or the "is/ought" fallacy, is a common logical fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it correlates with some past or present tradition. The appeal takes the form of "this is right because we've always done it this way."

An appeal to tradition essentially makes two assumptions:

* The old way of thinking was proven correct when introduced. In actuality this may be false -- the tradition might be entirely based on incorrect grounds.
* The past justifications for the tradition are still valid at present. In cases where circumstances have changed, this assumption may be false.

Yes, it is. If you don't want to do it the classic way and follow a strict diet to make sure you get eat a correct balance of protein/carb/fat and vitamins, minerals, and so on, there are always artificial substitutions for those.

Not that I'd recommend it, but in the 21st century everybody CAN be a vegan if they have the motivation. With a soy protein drink and some multi vitamin pills every day you can live reasonably healthy from nothing but french fries and ketchup.

Remember that raw meat is instinctualy repugnant; it's only with the technologies of fire and weaponry that we began eating meat at all - environmental conditions positioning it as a good source of protein. All these years later, we have better, and more future proof means of satisifying our caloric and protein needs.

Tell that to the Japanese(sushi), or the Italians(carpacio) or the other multitude of groups that eat raw meat even to this day. We only find eating raw meat repugnant nowadays because we

Not really. Genetics don't change that quickly. We've been eating meat for millions of years, and those dietary needs won't change. Most of the western world does eat a lot more meat than they need, but a healthy vegan needs supplements to make up for missing nutrients easily available in meat. Even more so for children.

The relevant bit starts at 43:55. Basically, they think that a Linux version would mean it would have to be open source, which obviously it doesn't. To quote one of the developers: "Linux can fuck off as far as I'm concerned." Gee, thanks. I don't mind if you're not going to bother making a port to Linux, but to not even bother to understand what people are asking and instead resorting to profanity shows these guys are a bunch of closed-minded dicks.

Indeed, I hate PETA as much as any right-minded individual, but these guys pulled a dick-move. They basically trolled the PETA forums with a bunch of sock-puppet accounts in order to goad them into action and to get publicity for their game, which seems, judging by the/. comments, to have not made it onto many peoples' radar. Yet again, PETA have made the world a worse place in which to live. This time by giving these tumbling tumbling dick-weeds the publicity they are so obviously desperate for.

Those damn dicks didn't even bother to look into my suggestion of rewriting the game in lisp and bf and/or port it to MSX,C64,TI89 and TDS220.

I know you're being facetious to prove a point, but Linux isn't exactly obscure or old anymore. It might not be mainstream but it's common enough for it to have had ports of commercial games for it, and also ports of games from indy developers. It's no longer unreasonable for someone to ask, that's all. I've seen plenty of indy games with Linux ports to make me believ

Seems to have worked for World of Goo. The developers just supplied static libraries where necessary instead of relying on the user to have the right libs already installed. This is EXACTLY how commercial software should be distributed in Linux. It takes the environment down to a more manageable level.

Then, finally, you have the fundies who say you should never have proprietary software ever if it isn't baked into the hardware who drum up a racket any time the topic is raised and will even hit you with a ma

How can someone relate to an animal in order to sympathise with it and support its "rights"?
Don't get me wrong I'm not some sadistic freak that tortures animals but c'mon here...

I can relate to human torture because I can mentally put myself in the shoes of the tortured person a bit.
But no, I wouldn't/don't care about animal rights and I'll keep devouring them for a long, long time.

Because their president wants to be cooked at a barbecue when she dies, to disgust people from eating meat. Or something. Honestly, the idea was so nuts, I forgot to take notes on why, and merely listened to the what. Because when you're spoon-out-your-eyeballs crazy like that, it's hard not to be inadvertantly entertaining and terrifying at the same time.

It used to be SOP to eat the dead in many cultures. There's still tribes where the custom is for the new chief to eat the heart of the old one when he dies. What's crazy about that? People are made out of meat. Crazy would be killing them to eat them when the alternative is not starvation but merely menu boredom.

It used to be SOP to eat the dead in many cultures. There's still tribes where the custom is for the new chief to eat the heart of the old one when he dies. What's crazy about that?

There are several rather serious diseases that are only transmitted by eating the flesh of humans. You rarely hear of these diseases because they only appear among cannabalistic cultures of which there are few. However, I remember reading somewhere in the last 10 years about a culture that was confirmed to have certain cannabalistic traditions because of the occurence among them of one of those diseases. Up until that disease was diagnosed among them, it was believed that the references to that culture eati

Animals die, you know, so it's mostly a matter of how and at what age. Me, I'd rather have my head clubbed or my neck slit in a farm than be eaten half-alive by a predator that just mauled me enough to keep me still. And while that's not a true dichotomy, the odds of dying peacefully, surrounded and guarded by my peers are small.

They think that's gross? The villain of SMB is Dr. Fetus, a fetus in a jar. Bosses include a happy ball of blood, a meat boy clone made of feces and a living pile of corpses. Oh and animals constantly get murdered by the saw blades everywhere as they try to flee from the carnage as Dr. Fetus destroys more and more of the world.

That's one of the reasons why nobody takes PETA seriously: They operate on the same level as 4chan trolling Habbo Hotel. I mean, I've seen some fairly grown-up actions from Anonymous but PETA consistently acts like an antisocial teenager.

Plus, whenever they want to "parody" something it's always mean-spirited and extremely badly researched, ending up carrying a lot of unfortunate implications - such as Super Tofu Boy, which manages to casually describe eating animals as being identical to cannibalism. Way